If witnesses is being driven by the Bolton leak, can we tie the need for witnesses to Bolton testifying? That is, if executive privilege fails to prevent Bolton from testifying, then Trump gets witnesses too. But if Bolton gets stopped, then we don’t need any witnesses.
You are talking to an utter impeachment duffus (me). In my view, the reason for witnesses is to look good to the public. If we get witnesses and they don't, then that would not look good. None of this has anything to do with legality ... well, tiny pieces such as subpoenas do. But any law based podcast (I can point you to some or you can look for "The Libertarian" and "Law Talk" on hoover.org) and Dershowitz and other of the defense attorneys have already put to rest (logically and legally) that this is a real impeachment based on laws and facts.
If witnesses is being driven by the Bolton leak, can we tie the need for witnesses to Bolton testifying? That is, if executive privilege fails to prevent Bolton from testifying, then Trump gets witnesses too. But if Bolton gets stopped, then we don’t need any witnesses.
You are talking to an utter impeachment duffus (me). In my view, the reason for witnesses is to look good to the public. If we get witnesses and they don't, then that would not look good. None of this has anything to do with legality ... well, tiny pieces such as subpoenas do. But any law based podcast (I can point you to some or you can look for "The Libertarian" and "Law Talk" on hoover.org) and Dershowitz and other of the defense attorneys have already put to rest (logically and legally) that this is a real impeachment based on laws and facts.